Anders » November 19th, 2016, 3:34 am wrote:My point is that the first quote showed that indeed, the peer review process is in practice less reliable than what has been claimed. And the second quote is from a mainstream source in case the first quote is unreliable.

I'm reading some of the text on Miles Mathis' website at the moment, but I haven't figured out yet if his claims are valid or not.

I can appreciate that you're reserving judgment on "Miles Mathis" and his claims. All the more reason to refrain from casually sourcing him. We don't need an alleged email from the Math-Cave to prove the fact that the peer review process is beyond flawed. It adds nothing to the topic. Neither does the following line from TimR.

According to "Miles Mathis" everyone under the sun, except him/it/them of course, is "a front for intel." Perhaps we should place all the casual references to "Miles Mathis" in a new thread titled, "Miles Mathis and other intel demigods of scientific revisionism"?

After having read at least some of the text on the Miles Mathis website I have doubts about the claims. There is a chance that he is controlled opposition using the same tactics as mainstream science such as a lot of complicated text to hide a lack of real information and as a diversion.

That possibility is a new realization to me. Controlled opposition in the form of the truth movement, alternative media and conspiracy theorists is something I have been aware of for quite some time, but controlled opposition in the form of alternative scientists is a new idea to me. Hmm... Tricky.

The truth is usually really simple, so when explanations get complicated then there is a big chance that it's disinfo.

However, Miles Mathis has a really good explanation for how mainstream science has become a big heap of ad hoc additions with more and more complex and abstract math so that mistakes in the foundation become hidden.

aa5 » November 19th, 2016, 6:16 pm wrote:That is an interesting idea to set an overall goal for yourself, that will require you to learn much of how it works in order to accomplish the goal. I guess you will have to break that big goal down into small parts, then research each part.

So far I'm mainly reading on alternative science sites, and reading some of the studies in physics, I started several months back as a hobby. It still is like a very blurry picture for me, but I can now see a few small pieces of the picture with some clarity.

One thing I have found out, is someone telling you what a study says, is not reliable. Even if that person is really smart and honest, they could just be wrong in their interpretation or explain it poorly.

+1 your last paragraph - I figure that if satellites are not possible, then I need to understand enough about the supposed usage of them to be able to work out if the system could work without satellites. And once I've worked that out to my satisfaction, the real work is being able to articulate this to others in as unambiguous a way as possible. Because the receiving end of the system is something I can have in my hand, and pick up the data signals, then I have a certain amount of freedom to log transmissions and actually run some trial calculations based on the decoded data.

Could take a while though, but I don't see anyone else taking this on, so why not get stuck in.....

Of course you're right aa5, I doubt whether investigating the engineering premise of GPS would turn up anything that could be used as 'proof' in conversations with people - 'because science' etc. It's more personal curiosity really, as I believe satellites are not possible, therefore I'd like to understand how the GPS service really does work, because it most certainly does work.

One early bit of work I looked at was whether having 'satellites' on the ground would reduce the distance to the receiver significantly enough that the distance would be too small to be accurately calculated by the GPS receiver. Receivers do this by comparing timestamps of received transmissions vs the receiver's own internal clock, which means that the clock resolution needs to be very fine. Most GPS receivers run a clock somewhere around 5uS to 30uS, and this is fine enough to calculate a distance with reasonable precision even at a distance of say 1000 miles, rather than the 12,500 miles stated for geostationary GPS satellites.

Satellites are definitely real. For example, in GPS satellites they claim that Einstein's relativity is corrected for by simply changing the speed of the clocks in the satellites. How many people have access to those clocks? Very few experts and it's a piece of cake for them to be gatekeepers and simply say that they have adjusted the clocks while in reality they don't adjust the clocks at all.

And also, when what is called frame dragging caused by Einstein's relativity was measured with satellite Gravity Probe B, the result was zero frame dragging (see video), which shows a falsification of Einstein's relativity. Wikipedia has a whitewash article about it where errors in accuracy are used to explain away the lack of confirming results.

EDIT: In the video I linked to the presenter later on says that dark matter is predicted by Einstein's relativity. I'm not an expert but even Newtonian gravity says that there is extra mass in galaxies. Dark matter is real. Dark energy (which is different than dark matter) on the other hand can be explained by the vacuum energy in space causing friction on photons which explains the extra redshift measured. No need for some additional dark energy or accelerated expansion of the universe.

Here is a video where Leonard Susskind explains Einstein's special relativity. I found that interesting because Susskind is imo very good at explaining physics in clear and simple ways. He's also one of the top physicists in the world, and that is also interesting because it means that for him to explain special relativity is like me explaining that 2+2=4, meaning this is very basic stuff for Susskind.

And I was curious about how he deals with the division by zero problem I posted a link to in a previous post. Sure enough, the 0 = 0x equation pops up even in Susskind's presentation. Another curious thing is that from about 59 minutes he calculates a solution with a square root of something. Then a student in the audience asks about the other root.

What the question from the student is about is that when taking the square root the result is both plus and minus. For example, what is the square root of 9? The answer is both 3 and -3, because 3*3=9 and (-3)*(-3) is also 9. (The answer 3 is called the principal square root and is only one of the two roots.)

Susskind uses the positive root in an equation that has the form x = y. Clearly, the only case for when this is true for both roots is when x = 0. And Susskind answers that he isn't sure what the minus root says. Really? Unless I have missed something here, it seems that Susskind implicitly says that Einstein's relativity is false.

Skeptics can ask that if Einstein's relativity really is a hoax, then how to explain the recent measurement of gravitational waves?

"Scientists with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) announced on Thursday at a much-anticipated press conference in Washington, D.C. (one of at least five simultaneous events held in the U.S. and Europe) that the more than half-century search for gravitational waves has finally succeeded." -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ck-holes1/

Let's assume it's a correct measurement (I believe it can be a real result). But it doesn't have to be because of Einstein's relativity. Instead, the vacuum energy in space is a medium and if gravity is simply vacuum pressure gradients, then pressure ripples can travel through that medium, just like how light travels through that medium. In Einstein's relativity, both light and gravity can magically travel through space without a medium.

I agree we should not necessarily throw out the idea of the medium. Nor even "the aether".

However, when you write:

Anders wrote:Satellites are definitely real.

... and then simply use data and/or articles credited to satellites, I think you should retract your adverb "definitely" and replace it with something like; "in the realm of possibility, though I haven't researched it enough to prove that they are".

There have already been pretty reasonable and common sense guesses about how relay antennas actually track GPS data using simple triangulation, with the so-called "satellites" credited with mere mapping. If you want to refute that, or if you want to try to prove any "manmade satellites" are both real and the source of the data credited to them in news articles from sources that inherently trust the bogus NASA, you should do so in this satellite musings thread. After actually reading the 50 pages, if you please. And with the skepticism we all owe NASA liars, and which is highly overdue.

... and then simply use data and/or articles credited to satellites, I think you should retract your adverb "definitely" and replace it with something like; "in the realm of possibility, though I haven't researched it enough to prove that they are".

There have already been pretty reasonable and common sense guesses about how relay antennas actually track GPS data using simple triangulation, with the so-called "satellites" credited with mere mapping. If you want to refute that, or if you want to try to prove any "manmade satellites" are both real and the source of the data credited to them in news articles from sources that inherently trust the bogus NASA, you should do so in this satellite musings thread. After actually reading the 50 pages, if you please. And with the skepticism we all owe NASA liars, and which is highly overdue.

I didn't explain fully why I made the claim that satellites definitely are real. The reason is that I have seen satellites myself as dots of light moving across the night sky. And satellites use higher radio frequencies than those frequencies that can bounce on the atmosphere:

"VHF signals with frequencies above about 30 MHz usually penetrate the ionosphere and are not returned to the Earth's surface. E-skip is a notable exception, where VHF signals including FM broadcast and VHF TV signals are frequently reflected to the Earth during late Spring and early Summer. E-skip rarely affects UHF frequencies, except for very rare occurrences below 500 MHz." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave#O ... iderations

Yes, and even top mainstream scientists probably know that vacuum energy is a medium in space, but they can't admit that yet since Einstein's relativity is still the dogma. What they can do is to at least explain it like this:

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. ... Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[9]" [my ephasis] -- Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_th ... tum_vacuum

"Scientists with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) announced on Thursday at a much-anticipated press conference in Washington, D.C. (one of at least five simultaneous events held in the U.S. and Europe) that the more than half-century search for gravitational waves has finally succeeded." -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ck-holes1/

Let's assume it's a correct measurement (I believe it can be a real result). But it doesn't have to be because of Einstein's relativity. Instead, the vacuum energy in space is a medium and if gravity is simply vacuum pressure gradients, then pressure ripples can travel through that medium, just like how light travels through that medium. In Einstein's relativity, both light and gravity can magically travel through space without a medium.

Good post.. ya the gravitational waves would move through the aether. The aether seems to be from what little I understand, to be like water, where its incompressible, and can transmit force through it. Imo a perfect vacuum without an aether/any sort of medium or field occupying it, would not even be space. Presumably it wouldn't have spatial dimensions.

"Scientists with the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) announced on Thursday at a much-anticipated press conference in Washington, D.C. (one of at least five simultaneous events held in the U.S. and Europe) that the more than half-century search for gravitational waves has finally succeeded." -- https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ck-holes1/

Let's assume it's a correct measurement (I believe it can be a real result). But it doesn't have to be because of Einstein's relativity. Instead, the vacuum energy in space is a medium and if gravity is simply vacuum pressure gradients, then pressure ripples can travel through that medium, just like how light travels through that medium. In Einstein's relativity, both light and gravity can magically travel through space without a medium.

Good post.. ya the gravitational waves would move through the aether. The aether seems to be from what little I understand, to be like water, where its incompressible, and can transmit force through it. Imo a perfect vacuum without an aether/any sort of medium or field occupying it, would not even be space. Presumably it wouldn't have spatial dimensions.

That's similar to the quote from Nobel Laureate Robert B. Laughlin: "Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part."

But mainstream science seems to still dismiss the idea of space as a medium: "By this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminifer ... r#Problems

The quantum vacuum (vacuum energy) actually fits all those requirements in the quote. It fills all of space like a fluid (quantum soup). It's millions of times more rigid than steel (the "piece of window glass"-quality has enormous energy density [also called zero point energy]). It is essentially massless because the enormous energy is cancelled out on a macro level (this explains the vacuum catastrophe). It has virtually no viscosity (resistance). It is completely transparent. It is very non-dispersive (for example it affects photons very little). It is incompressible (space itself along with the vacuum energy can't be compressed). And it's continuous down to at least the Planck scale.

That makes sense, they would have to account for the nature of the aether even if they are officially denying it. I'm not sure why the aether would have to be so rigid, but I do understand why it has to be incompressible, continuous & next to no viscosity. If their theory of gravity and equations of the orbit of planets were correct, then aether would have to be massless. But they could simply be wrong on their theory of gravity.

One place I think they get confused is they talk about a light wave like it is something separate from the aether. Eg.. like a physical thing travelling through water. But I view it like after an earthquake in the ocean, a force wave is travelling through the water. But that wave of force from the earthquake is not a physical thing. It is pushing the individual molecules of water, which then push the molecules next to them, and so on.